Fragments of Earth Lore: Sketches & Addresses Geological and Geographical

When we consider the enormous thickness of the strata that constitute any of our larger coal-fields, we can hardly doubt that one or more periods of high eccentricity must have occurred during their accumulation. It does not follow, however, that we should be able to detect in these strata any evidence of alternating cold and warm epochs. So long as ocean-currents from the tropics found ready entrance to polar regions across vast tracts of what is now dry land, extreme and widespread glacial conditions were impossible. Any lowering of temperature due to cosmical causes might indeed induce new snow-fields and glaciers to appear, or existing ones to extend themselves in northern regions and the most elevated lands of lower latitudes; but such local glaciation need not have seriously affected any of the areas in which coal-seams were being formed. For nothing appears more certain than this – that our coal-seams as a rule were formed over broad, low-lying alluvial lands, and in swamps and marshes, along the margins of estuaries or shallow bays of the sea. Some seams, it is true, are evidently formed of drifted vegetable débris, but the majority point to growth in situ. The strata with which they are associated are shallow-water sediments which could only have been deposited at some considerable distance from any mountain-regions in which glaciers were likely to exist. It is idle, therefore, to ask for evidence of glacial action amongst strata formed under such conditions. The only evidence of ice-work we are likely to get is that of erratics. And these are not wanting, although it is probable that most of those which are found embedded in coals have been transported by rafts of vegetable matter or in the roots of trees. The same explanation, however, will not account for the boulders which Sir William Dawson has recorded from the coal-fields of Nova Scotia. He describes them as occurring on the outside of a gigantic esker of Carboniferous age, and thinks they were probably dropped there by floating-ice at a time when coal-plants were flourishing in the swamps on the other side of the gravel embankment.

If the disposition of the land-areas in Carboniferous times rendered such an ice-age as that of the Pleistocene impossible – in other words, if the effects flowing from high eccentricity of the orbit must to a large extent have been neutralised – the flora and fauna of the period can hardly be expected to yield any recognisable evidence of fluctuating climatic conditions. When our winter happened in aphelion new snow-fields might have appeared, or already existing glaciers might have increased in size; while, with the winter in perihelion, the temperature in northern latitudes would doubtless be raised. But the general result would simply be an alternation of warm and somewhat cooler conditions. And such fluctuations of climate might readily have taken place without materially modifying; the life of the period.

The breccias of the Permian system have been described by Ramsay as of glacial origin. Some geologists agree with him, while others do not – and many have been the ingenious suggestions which these last have advanced in explanation of the phenomena. Some have tried to show how the stones and blocks in the breccias may have been striated without having recourse to the agency of glacier-ice, but they cannot explain away the fact that many of the stones (which vary in size from a few inches to three or four feet in diameter) have travelled distances of thirty or forty miles from the parent rocks. Similar erratic accumulations, which may belong to the same system or to the Carboniferous, occur in India and Australia. According to Dr. Blanford, the Indian boulder-beds are clearly indicative of ice-action, and he does not think that they can be explained by an assumed former elevation of the Himalaya. On the contrary, he is of opinion that the facts are best accounted for by a general lowering of the temperature, due probably to the action of cosmical causes. Daintree, Wilkinson, R. Oldham, and others who have studied the Australian erratic beds have likewise stated their belief that these are of true glacial origin.

I may pass rapidly over the Mesozoic systems, taking note, however, of the fact that in them we encounter evidence of ice-action of much the same kind as that met with in Palæozoic strata. While, on the one hand, the Mesozoic floras and faunas bespeak climatic conditions similar to those of earlier ages, but probably not quite so uniform; on the other, the occurrence of erratics in various marine accumulations is sufficient to show that now and again ice floated across seas, the floors of which were tenanted by reef-building corals. The geographical conditions continued unfavourable to the formation of extensive ice-sheets in temperate latitudes, no matter how high the eccentricity of the orbit might have been. The erratics which occur in certain Jurassic and Cretaceous deposits are admitted by most geologists to have been ice-borne. Now, it is highly improbable that the transporting agent could have been coast-ice, for it is hardly possible to conceive of ice forming on the surface of a sea in which flourished an abundant Mesozoic fauna. The erratics, therefore, seem to imply the existence in Mesozoic times of local glaciers, which here and there descended to the sea, as in the north-east of Scotland. The erratics in the Scottish Jurassic are evidently of native origin, and it is most improbable that those which have been met with in the Chalk of England and France could have floated from any very great distance. How, then, can we explain the appearance of local glaciers in these latitudes during Mesozoic times? The geographical conditions of the period could not have favoured the formation of perennial snow and ice in our area, unless our lands were at that time much more elevated than now. And this is the usual explanation. It is supposed that mountains much higher than any we now possess probably existed in such regions as the Scottish Highlands. It is easy to imagine the former existence of such mountains. So long a time has elapsed since the Jurassic period, that the Archæan and Palæozoic areas cannot but have suffered prodigious denudation in the interval. But, when one considers how very lofty, indeed, those mountains must have been, in order to reach the snow-line of Jurassic times, one may be excused for expressing a doubt as to whether the suggested explanation is reasonable. At all events, the phenomena are, to say the least, as readily explicable on the supposition that the snow-line was temporarily lowered by cosmical causes. Even with eccentricity at a high value, no great ice-sheets, indeed, could have existed, but local snow-fields and glaciers might have appeared in such mountain-regions as were of sufficient height. And this might have happened without producing any great difference in the temperature of the sea, or any marked modification in the distribution of life. In short, we should simply have, as before, an alternation of warm and somewhat cooler climates, but nothing approaching to the glacial and interglacial epochs of the Pleistocene.

These conclusions seem to me to be strongly supported by the evidence of ice-action during Tertiary times. The gigantic erratics of the Alpine Eocene do not appear to have been derived from the Alps, but rather from the Archæan area of southern Bohemia. The strata in which they occur are, for the most part, unfossiliferous; they contain only fucoidal remains, and are presumably marine. How is it possible to account for the appearance of these erratics in marine deposits in central Europe at a time when, as evidenced by the Eocene flora and fauna the climate was warm? Are we to infer the former existence of an extremely lofty range of Bohemian Alps which has since vanished? Is it not more probable that here, too, we have evidence of a lowering of the snow-line, induced by cosmical causes, which brought about the appearance of snow-fields and glaciers in a mountain-tract of much less elevation than would have been required in the absence of high eccentricity of the orbit? If it be objected that such cosmical causes must have had some effect upon the distribution of life, I reply that very probably they had, although not to any extreme extent. The researches of Mr. Starkie Gardner have shown that the flora of the English Eocene affords distinct evidence of climatic changes. But as the geographical conditions of that period precluded the possibility of extensive glaciation, and could only, at the most, have induced local glaciers to appear in elevated mountain-regions, it seems idle to cite the non-occurrence of erratics and morainic accumulations in the Eocene of England and France as an argument against the application of Croll’s theory to the case of the erratics of the Flysch. I repeat, then, that under the geographical conditions of the Eocene, all the more obvious effects likely to have resulted from the passage of a period of high eccentricity would be the appearance of a few local glaciers, the existence of which could have had no more influence on the climate of adjacent lowlands than is notable in similar circumstances in our own day. It is absurd, therefore, to expect to find evidence in Eocene strata of as strongly contrasted climates as those of the glacial and interglacial deposits of the Pleistocene. There must, doubtless, have been alternations of climate in our hemisphere; but these would consist simply of passages from warm to somewhat cooler conditions – just such changes, in fact, as are suggested by the plants of the English Eocene.

The evidence of ice-action in the Miocene strata is even more striking than that of which I have just been speaking. The often-cited case of the erratics of the Superga near Turin I need do little more than mention. These erratics were undoubtedly carried by icebergs, calved from Alpine glaciers at a time when northern Italy was largely submerged. The erratic deposits are unfossiliferous, and are underlaid and overlaid by fossiliferous strata, in none of which are any erratics to be found. What is the meaning of these intercalated glacial accumulations? Can we believe it possible that the Miocene glaciers were enabled to reach the sea in consequence of a sudden movement of elevation, which must have been confined to the Alps themselves? Then, if this be so, we must go a step further, and suppose that, after some little time, the Alps were again suddenly depressed, so that the glaciers at once ceased to reach the sea-coast. For, as Dr. Croll has remarked, “had the lowering of the Alps been effected by the slow process of denudation, it must have taken a long course of ages to have lowered them to the extent of bringing the glacial state to a close.” And we should, in such a case, find a succession of beds indicating a more or less protracted continuance of glacial conditions, and not one set of erratic accumulations intercalated amongst strata, the organic remains in which are clearly suggestive of a warm climate. The occurrence of erratics in the Miocene of Italy is all the more interesting from the fact that in the Miocene of France and Spain similar evidence of ice-action is forthcoming.

Opponents of Dr. Croll’s theory have made much of Baron Nordenskiöld’s statement that he could find no trace of former glacial action in any of the fossiliferous formations within the Arctic regions. He is convinced that “an examination of the geognostic condition, and an investigation of the fossil flora and fauna of the polar lands, show no signs of a glacial era having existed in those parts before the termination of the Miocene period.” Well, as we have seen, there is no reason to believe that the geographical conditions in our hemisphere, at any time previous to the close of the Pliocene period, could have induced glacial conditions comparable to those of the Pleistocene Ice Age. The strata referred to by Nordenskiöld, are, for the most part, of marine origin, and their faunas are sufficient to show us that the Arctic seas were formerly temperate and genial. If any ice existed then, it could only have been in the form of glaciers on elevated lands. And it is quite possible that these, during periods of high eccentricity, may have descended to the sea and calved their icebergs; and, if so, erratics may yet be found embedded here and there in the Arctic fossiliferous formations, although Nordenskiöld failed to see them. One might sail all round the Palæozoic coast-lines of Scotland without being able to observe erratics in the strata, and yet, as we know, these have been encountered in the interior of the country. The wholesale scattering of erratics at any time previous to the Pleistocene, must have been exceptional even in arctic regions, and consequently one is not surprised that they do not everywhere stare the observer in the face.

The general conclusion, then, to which I think we may reasonably come, is simply this: – That geological climate has been determined chiefly by geographical conditions. So long as the lands of the globe were discontinuous and of relatively small extent, warm ocean-currents reaching polar regions produced a general uniformity of temperature – the climate of the terrestrial areas being more or less markedly insular in character. Under these conditions, the sea would nowhere be frozen. But when the land-masses became more and more consolidated, when owing to the growth of the continents the warm ocean-currents found less ready access to arctic regions, then the temperature of those regions was gradually lowered, until eventually the seas became frost-bound, and the lands were covered with snow and ice. But while the chief determining cause of climate has been the relative distribution of land and water, it is impossible to doubt that during periods of high eccentricity of the orbit, the climate must have been modified to a greater or less extent. In our own day the geographical conditions are such that, were eccentricity to attain a high value, the climate of the Pleistocene would be reproduced, and our hemisphere would experience a succession of alternating cold and genial epochs.

But in earlier stages of the world’s history, the geographical conditions were not of a kind to favour the accumulation of vast ice-fields. During a period of extreme eccentricity, there would probably be fluctuations of temperature in high latitudes; but nothing like the glacial and interglacial epochs of the Pleistocene could have occurred. At most, there would be a general lowering of the temperature, sufficient to render the climate of arctic seas and lands somewhat cooler, and probably to induce the appearance in suitable places of local glaciers; and, owing to precession of the equinox, these cooler conditions would be followed by a general elevation of the temperature above the normal for the geographical conditions of the period. In Palæozoic and Mesozoic times, the effects of high eccentricity of the orbit appear to have been, in a great measure, neutralised by the geographical conditions, with a possible exception in the Permian period. But in Tertiary times, when the land-masses had become more continuous, the cosmical causes of change referred to must have had greater influence. And I cannot help agreeing with Dr. Croll that the warm climates of the Arctic regions during that era were, to some extent, the result of high eccentricity.

In concluding this discussion, I readily admit that our knowledge of geographical evolution is as yet in its infancy. We have still very much to learn, and no one will venture to dogmatise upon the subject. But I hope I have made it clear that the evidence, so far as it goes, does not justify the confident assertions of Dr. Croll’s opponents, that his theory is contradicted by what we know of the climatic conditions of Palæozoic, Mesozoic, and Cainozoic times. On the contrary, it seems to me to gain additional support from the very evidence to which Nordenskiöld and others have appealed.

Note. – The accompanying sketch-maps (Plate IV.) require a few words of explanation. The geology of the world is still so imperfectly known that any attempt at graphic representation of former geographical conditions cannot but be unsatisfactory. The approximate positions of the chief areas of predominant elevation and depression during stated periods of the past may have been ascertained in a general way; but when we try to indicate these upon a map, such provisional reconstructions are apt to suggest a more precise and definite knowledge than is at present attainable. For it must be confessed that there is hardly a line upon the small maps (A, B, C) which might not have been drawn differently. This, of course, is more especially true of South America, Africa, Asia – of large areas of which the geological structure is unknown. But although the boundaries of the land-masses shown upon the maps referred to are thus confessedly provisional, the maps nevertheless bring out the main fact of a gradual growth and consolidation of the land-areas – a passage from insular to continental conditions. I need hardly say this is no novel idea. It was clearly set forth by Professor Dana upwards of forty years ago (Silliman’s Journal, 1846, p. 352; 1847, pp. 176, 381), and it received some years later further illustration from Professor Guyot, who insisted upon the insular character of the climate during Palæozoic times (The Earth and Man, 1850). It must be understood that the maps (A, B, C) are not meant to exhibit the geographical conditions of the world at any one point of time. In Map A, for example, the area coloured blue was not necessarily covered by sea at any particular stage in the Palæozoic era. It simply represents approximately the regions tended. But, as already stated, numerous oscillations of level occurred in Palæozoic times, so that many changes in the distribution of land and water must have taken place down to the close of the Permian period. The land-areas shown upon the map are simply those which appear to have been more or less persistent through all the geographical changes referred to. Similar remarks apply to the other maps representing the more or less persistent land-areas of Mesozoic and Tertiary times. Thus, for example, there are reasons for believing that Madagascar was joined to the mainland of Africa at some stage of the Mesozoic era, but was subsequently insulated before Tertiary times. Again, as Mesozoic era a land-connection obtained between New Zealand and Australia. The same naturalist also points out that a chain of islands, now represented by numerous islets and shoals, served in Tertiary times to link Madagascar to India. Map D shows the areas of predominant elevation and depression. The area coloured brown represents the great continental plateau, which extends downwards to 1000 fathoms or so below the present sea-level. The area tinted blue is the oceanic depression. From the present distribution of plants and animals, we infer that considerable tracts which are now submerged have formerly been dry land – some of these changes having taken place in very recent geological times. And the same conclusions are frequently suggested by geological evidence. There can be little doubt that Europe in Tertiary times extended further into the Northern Ocean than it does now. And it is quite possible that in the Mesozoic and Palæozoic eras considerable land-areas may likewise have appeared here and there in those northern regions which are at present under water. There is, indeed, hardly any portion of the continental plateau which is now submerged that may not have been land at some time or other. But after making all allowance for such possibilities, the geological evidence, as far as it goes, nevertheless leads to the conclusion that upon the whole a wider expense of primeval continental plateau has come to the surface since Tertiary times than was ever exposed during any former period of the world’s history.

[Mr. Marcou states (American Geologist, 1890, p. 229) that the idea of a gradual growth of land-areas originated with Elie de Beaumont, who was in the habit of showing such maps, and used them in his lectures at Paris as early as 1836. Professor Beudant published three of these same maps for the Jurassic, Cretaceous, and Tertiary seas in his Cours élémentaire de Géologie (1841); and Professor Carl Vogt in his Lehrbuch der Geologie und Petrefactenkunde (1845), which was confessedly based on Elie de Beaumont’s lectures during 1844-46, gives four maps of the Carboniferous, Jurassic, Cretaceous, and Tertiary seas.]

XIII.

The Scientific Results of Dr. Nansen’s Expedition. 118

In the Appendix to his most interesting and instructive work, The First Crossing of Greenland, Dr. Nansen treats of the scientific results of his remarkable journey. The detailed enumeration of these results, he tells us, would have been out of place in a general account of his expedition, but will appear in due time elsewhere. Hence he confines attention in his present work to such questions as are of most obvious interest, such as the extent, outward form, and elevation of the inland-ice of Greenland. By way of introduction his readers are presented with some account of the geological history of the country, which, although it contains nothing that was not already familiar to geologists, will doubtless prove interesting to others. After indicating that Greenland would appear to be composed almost exclusively of Archæan schists and granitoid eruptive rocks, the author glances at the evidence which the Mesozoic and Cainozoic strata of the west coast have supplied as to the former prevalence of genial climatic conditions. Heer is cited to show that during the formation of the Cretaceous beds the mean temperature of north Greenland was probably between 70° and 72° F., while in later Cainozoic times it could not have been less than 55° F., in 70° N.L. These conclusions are based on the character of the fossil floras. Now the mean annual temperature on the west coast of Greenland, where the relics of these old floras occur, is about 15° F., from which it is inferred that there has been a decrease of 40° since Cainozoic times. In those times, says Dr. Nansen, “the country must have rejoiced in a climate similar to that of Naples, while in the earlier Cretaceous period it must have resembled that of Egypt.” He then refers to the well-known fact that, long after the deposition of the Cainozoic beds of Greenland, intensely arctic conditions supervened, when the inland-ice of that country extended much beyond its present limits. This was the Glacial period of geologists, during which all the northern regions of America and Europe, down to what are now temperate latitudes were likewise swathed in ice. Various hypotheses have been advanced in explanation of these strange climatic vicissitudes, and some of them are very briefly discussed by Dr. Nansen. None of the suggested solutions of the problem quite satisfies him; but he appears to look with most favour on the view that great climatic revolutions in what are now polar regions may have resulted from movements of the earth’s axis. He admits, however, that there are certain strong objections to this hypothesis, and concludes that we have not yet got any satisfactory explanation to cover all the facts of the case. In discussing the question of a possible wandering of the pole, the author cites certain astronomical observations to show that the position of the axis is even now slowly changing, the movement amounting to half a second in six months. This is not much; but if the change, as he remarks, were to continue at the same rate for 3600 years, the shift would amount to one degree. Thus in a period of no more than 72,000 to 108,000 years Greenland might be brought into the latitude required for the growth of such floras as those of Cainozoic and Mesozoic times. Geologists will readily concede these or longer periods if they be required, but they will have graver doubts than Dr. Nansen as to whether any such great changes in the axis are possible. The astronomical observations referred to, even if they were fully confirmed, do not show that the movement is constant in one direction. They indicated, as he mentions, a slight increase of latitude during the first quarter of 1889, followed in the second quarter of the same year by a decrease, which continued to January, 1890. Since the publication of Professor George Darwin’s masterly paper on the influence of geological changes on the earth’s axis of rotation, geologists have felt assured that the great climatic revolutions to which the stratified rocks bear witness must be otherwise explained than by a wandering of the pole. Indeed, the geological evidence alone is enough to show that profound climatic changes have taken place while the pole has occupied its present position. Thus, there is no reasonable grounds for doubting that during the Glacial period the pole was just where we find it to-day. For, under existing geographical conditions, could a sufficient lowering of temperature be brought about, snow-fields and ice-sheets would gather and increase over the very same areas as we know were glaciated in Pleistocene times. Still further, we have only to recall the fact that several extreme revolutions of climate supervened during the so-called Glacial period, to see how impossible it is to account for the phenomena by movements of the earth’s axis.